WRENTHAM  Just a week after the nation celebrated its birthday, residents of the Garden Lane public housing complex are being told they can no longer display their patriotism by hanging U.S. flags outside their homes.

Tenants of the complex, operated near the center of town by the Wrentham Housing Authority, were notified of the new policy through a letter taped to their doors sometime Wednesday afternoon.

The letter, which is unsigned but is on housing authority letterhead, says the move was made after a tenant repeatedly complained to the state Department of Housing and Community Development over the July 4th holiday.

(The) Wrentham Housing Authority has been informed that the public display of the American flag in common areas is not permitted, it said.

The letter goes on to say that flags can still be displayed inside tenants apartments, just not outside.

Flags may be visible through the apartment windows, but may not be displayed on the exterior of the buildings or on the ground around the buildings, it said.

There is no explanation given for the rule, other than the complaints of a tenant. Housing Authority Executive Director Nancy Siegel was not available Wednesday afternoon for comment.

A call to a spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Housing and Community Development was not returned Wednesday.

Ironically, flag-holding hardware is affixed to doors throughout the complex.

The issue in Wrentham is similar to one that developed last year at Gardner Terrace, a privately owned, but government subsidized affordable housing complex in Attleboro.

There, tenants were forbidden from putting any decorations, including flags, on their doors after a resident posted an Irish slur.

Whatever the reasoning for the rule, it quickly rankled residents of the Wrentham housing, including Barbara Marshall, the only tenant to have a flag hung up outside her home Wednesday afternoon.

Marshall, 82, called the policy unbelievable, and said shes proudly hung a flag outside her apartment for more than a dozen years.

Ive always had a flag, she said. Im very upset.

At times speaking through tears, Marshall said veterans have played an important role in her familys history, from her brother landing in Normandy D-Day invasion during World War II, to her work in shelters, to her grandson clearing graves in Plainville.

All my family is so indebted to the veterans, to that flag, she said.

Upon reading the letter, Marshall, who is recovering from surgery, said she had to lie down because she was so upset.

She said she will not remove the flag herself and will document any other attempts to discard it.

If somebody wants to come and take the flag down, Ill take pictures, she said.

Marshall said she intends to call U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, a Wrentham resident, to see if his office can help change the policy.

Somebodys got to help, she said.

For now, though, Marshall said shell continue to hang her flag proudly despite what the letter, which also contains regulations for gardening, says.

and to use the oft-quoted bit (I’ll use a slightly amended version from talk host Pat Whitley (added words in
parentheses):
It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag who allows the protester (the freedom he abuses) to burn the flag.

The letter, which is unsigned but is on housing authority letterhead, says the move was made after a tenant repeatedly complained to the state Department of Housing and Community Development over the July 4th holiday.

Tyranny of the minority. Get used to it.

Flags may be visible through the apartment windows, but may not be displayed on the exterior of the buildings or on the ground around the buildings, it said.

Don’t expect that to last long, because surely the complainers eyes will still be offended.

The letter, which is unsigned but is on housing authority letterhead, says the move was made after a tenant repeatedly complained to the state Department of Housing and Community Development over the July 4th holiday.

Some very confused math at work here.

A single individual is upset so we are going to upset dozens so that this individual can be at peace.

Only an agent of government could calculate so poorly.

15
posted on 07/12/2012 9:11:08 AM PDT
by Pontiac
(The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)

Tenants of the complex, operated near the center of town by the Wrentham Housing Authority, were notified of the new policy through a letter taped to their doors sometime Wednesday afternoon.

the move was made after a tenant repeatedly complained to the state Department of Housing and Community Development over the July 4th holiday.

So here we have a person living in public housing; housing that is at least subsidized by government funds.

So this tenant while living in his/her apartment by the grace of charity of the tax paying citizens of the united states can not bare to look upon the flag which represents the people upon whose charity he or she depends.

This ungrateful wretch should be asked to seek other accommodations.

16
posted on 07/12/2012 9:17:23 AM PDT
by Pontiac
(The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)

I would hav ethought thare was some kind of lease, even for public housing, and adding a rule that was not part of the original agreement might have offered some legal recourse for the tenants. It appears a few thousand calls/emails were more efficient than any legal recourse.

“One person complained” is totally bogus. One anonymous complaint, and everybody else goes on record trying to defeat the decision. And gets ignored.

I’ll wager that the “anonymous complaint” is totally made up. Let that person stand up and speak out, like everyone else, and be accountable for your actions. “One person complained” is an excuse to take unilateral action on your own, while not accepting responsibility.

Second issue- what about Brazilian flags? Can they be flown? Mexico? Canada?

Well you get stuff from the government for free how on Earth can these people complain. I say change it from Public Housing to commercial housing. Have them pay normal rent prices and they can put up whatever they want.

Have them pay normal rent prices and they can put up whatever they want.

Not quite. Land owner (landlord) has the right to restrict outdoor displays, etc. If tenants don't like it they can move. This will be disclosed in the lease or addendum signed by the tenant on move-in. If you don't read it then you don't know what's in it.

44
posted on 07/12/2012 10:57:20 AM PDT
by tpmintx
(Problem: The people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who VOTE for a living.)

If burning a flag is free speech, isnt flying a flag also free speech?

Umm, not quite.

You see, burning the flag is a symbol that you are against "the man" and that you hate the USA. This is considered "good" speech and is encouraged by our betters.

On the other hand flying the flag is a symbol of your support for neo-colonial imperialism by a white race that wishes to exterminate all others in a quest for profit. It is also a symbol revered by "baby killers" in our so-called "Department of Defense". This is considered double plus un-good and must be crushed at all opportunity.

BAN REVERSED
State reverses flag ban at Wrentham housing complex
WRENTHAM  The state has stepped in to reverse a decision by a Massachusetts towns housing authority that barred residents from flying U.S. flags outside their homes.

A spokesman for the state Department of Housing and Community Development said Thursday that the flag ban was “a mistake that is being corrected immediately.”

The Wrentham Housing Authority notified residents of the policy through a letter taped to their doors Wednesday.

The unsigned letter says the move was made after a tenant made “repeated” complaints to the state housing department over the Fourth of July holiday.

Eighty-two-year-old tenant Barbara Marshall told The Sun Chronicle that she had no intention of removing the flag flying outside her home despite the order.

The Civil Rights Act is responsible for creating a mindset where upsetting the vast majority of people is necessary in order to accommodate one person. Theoretically in a Republic, majority rules. Not anymore. Although well-intended, the CRA was a mistake of EPIC proportions because it CREATED ‘protected classes’ at the EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. ‘Equality for ALL’ was already addressed in the Constitution and we should’ve left it alone!

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to temper the will of the majority and protect the rights of the minorities. In that respect you are correct that the CRA was a mistake and unnecessary.

The purpose of the Senate in congress was to prevent populace states from using the power of the majority to overrule or take advantage of less populace states. This was also the purpose of the Electoral College to prevent populace states from having too great a power in choosing Presidents.

The founders as students of history had a great fear of majority rule and warned against mob rule.

I must say however that having decided that they would accept the advantages of suckling on the teat of the nanny state these tenants of the public housing have little recourse but to abide by the rules set by whatever ruling body the government sets over the housing complex.

After all whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

50
posted on 07/12/2012 12:34:07 PM PDT
by Pontiac
(The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.